4 ms·
The competence identified is how well the agency was able to rapidly determine trust in a new employee; there's no good way to determine trust before the person
by temp2022account 4y ago
The competence identified is how well the agency was able to rapidly determine trust in a new employee; there's no good way to determine trust before the person is cleared, and after they are cleared access to confidential information is assumed (otherwise you have a dead agency incapable of hiring new people).
The NSA has a responsibility to remove weaknesses from their ranks, mission accomplished. If the problem you see is "Well agencies ought never give new people access to state secrets" then you can't have any changes ever - it's a dead organization.
The other competency I see is that none of the documents, which are of course going to be used in court, are available to the general public. They proved a weakness without leaking any information to parties outside the intel community. They essentially demonstrated that even if they hire a complete moron, state secrets will not leave protected facilities.
- harry8 4y agoHahaha. Hiring this guy to serve beer seems to me like it's not a super-competent move. But they did, then they stung him and he's likely going to jail and they get to talk up their success on thwarting "the baddies." Until you read the details and laugh at the idiocy of it. According to you it's because they can't determine who to trust before giving them security clearance. No way to do it. Can't even take a reasonable guess. Do they still use totally discredited and shown to be utterly ineffective witch-doctor bullshit like "polygraph" machines? Or have they stepped up from throwing bones and reading tea-leaves? Or they've stopped and just give anyone clearance because there's no other way to do it as you seem to be claiming. Is that your experience of working in security? Please share.